Visit the purchase page:
Mr. Huo said that he will increaseSamsung(China) Investment Co., Ltd. was the second defendant, and at the same time increased its service company as the plaintiff and filed a lawsuit with the court.
澎湃News reported on July 1 that Mr. Huo, who works in Urumqi, Xinjiang, was on May 26th.JingdongThe mall purchased a "Samsung Galaxy S10"Mobile phoneOn the next day after receiving the goods, the mobile phone was damaged by self-ignition during charging. After that, Mr. Huo mailed the mobile phone to the after-sales department of Samsung.
On July 2, Mr. Huo received a full purchase refund from Jingdong Mall. On the same day, he submitted a complaint to the People’s Court of Shayibak District, Urumqi, requesting the court to order the defendant Huizhou Samsung to provide the plaintiff with a complete (mobile phone) test report within 15 days, and make a reasonable explanation; requesting the defendant to produce it. The plaintiff publicly apologized to the plaintiff for illegal actions such as mobile phones with defects or even serious safety hazards, failure to perform the after-sales obligations, and paid the plaintiff compensation of RMB1.
On August 19th, the case was heard in the People's Court of Shayibak District, Urumqi, Xinjiang. After nearly two hours of court investigation, the two parties had mutual cross-examination and the court announced the adjournment.
澎湃News learned from the aforementioned ruling that Huizhou Samsung pleaded that its defendant’s main body was unsuitable because Huizhou Samsung was a production company and had fulfilled its obligations and responsibilities under the relevant legal requirements. The content of the plaintiff’s claim cannot In addition, Huizhou Samsung said that the products involved in the case did not have any flaws. The plaintiff’s appeal had no factual and legal basis, and requested to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim.
The court held that the VAT invoice provided by the plaintiff in this case showed that the purchaser was not the plaintiff. Therefore, according to the law, the plaintiff’s indictment was unsuitable and the ruling dismissed the plaintiff’s lawsuit.